Tag Archives: needs

The end is nigh: last rites for Hinkley C Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




I’ve always said that the two proposed new reactors at Hinkley Point would never get built. Now I’m not just saying it: I’m absolutely convinced that they’ll never get built.

A couple of weeks ago, EdF formally confirmed that no decision would be taken on Hinkley Point before the General Election, and probably not before the end of the year.

The reason it gave was that: “We are in the final phase of negotiations, but that phase can take a considerable amount of time, depending on the number of problems left to resolve.”

And that list of problems is daunting. First, it needs to be able to sign final deals with co-investors, including the Chinese, who are beginning to cut up rough. Then it needs final confirmation from the European Commission and the UK Government for a whole load of issues regarding the waste transfer contract.

It also needs to finalise a £10bn loan guarantee from the Treasury. And, despite months of discussions, it needs to conclude negotiations with the UK Government regarding the subsidy contract.

Legal challenges loom large

You’ll notice that this list does not include any delays that may be caused by the Austrian Government challenging the EU’s decision to approve as ‘legal’ (within the EU’s state aid rules) the billions of pounds of subsidy that the UK Government will pump into the project.

EdF doesn’t talk about that, as it still hopes that the Austrians will be ‘persuaded’ by the UK Government to withdraw its challenge. And the UK Government is certainly intent on doing exactly that!

Over the last few months, details have been trickling out about the retaliatory measures UK Ministers are now threatening in a demonstration of state bullying that beggars belief. A leaked memo showed UK ministers asserting that “the UK will take every opportunity to sue or damage Austria in the future.”

Which shows just how desperate the Coalition Government has become, having put all its notionally ‘low carbon’ eggs in the nuclear basket – a decision that has forced ministers to go to extraordinary lengths to get the Hinkley Point project over the line.

UK Government bending over backwards … to no avail

Influential commentator Dr Philip Johnstone, Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, put it as follows: “Every wish of the nuclear industry has been granted by the UK Government. The British planning system has been ‘streamlined’, with nuclear a key inspiration of the need to speed things up.

“The Government has created one of the best institutional contexts in the world for developing nuclear, with a new Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Office for Nuclear Development, and has ensured that nuclear regulators are equipped to pre-license designs for new build.

“As well as this, a strategic siting assessment and environmental assessment were carried out, further ‘streamlining’ the process of new nuclear construction. Electricity Market Reform has been brought in, where, despite being a mature technology, nuclear was granted Contracts for Difference at double the current market rate for the next 35 years.”

But none of that cuts much ice with the Austrians, and if their challenge proceeds, nobody quite knows how long a delay that might entail. It will certainly be years, not months.

And it just got worse for the Coalition Government. We heard last week that EdF is now going to have to deal with another legal challenge – this one from a German energy Co-operative (a very successful enterprise, founded by Greenpeace 15 years ago) on the grounds that the EU’s decision self-evidently distorts competition.

Greenpeace Energy is also calling on the German Government to join Austria in its formal complaint, but that’s still unlikely.

The nuclear dream crashes into harsh realities

But you know what – regardless of what happens with those legal challenges, it looks like the beginning of the end for Hinkley anyway. And here’s why:

  • The cost of the Hinkley Point project has gone up and up over the last two years, and shows little indication of stabilising where it now is;
  • The calamitous failure of EdF (and its partner Areva) to deliver the first two EPR projects at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France has dragged on and on;
    – The two Chinese co-investors (the China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power) have got more and more leery about the EPR reactor design;
  • The French Government has become more and more outspoken about its reluctance to go on bailing out either EdF or Areva, as their balance sheets go from bad to worse;
  • Areva is now in such a bad state (with a €4.8bn loss in 2014) that it looks as if it might have to withdraw as a co-investor in the Hinkley project – a state of affairs pretty much confirmed by EdF’s CEO last week;
  • Worse yet, Areva has announced that it wants to suspend indefinitely any further work on the approval process for its EPR (the same reactor design as Hinkley) in the USA, which sends a pretty strong signal that the EPR in the USA is as good as dead and buried;
  • To cap it all, the UK Government has itself further muddied the waters by seeking approval from the EU to hold a ‘golden share’ in the Hinkley project. This would give them special voting rights, and could theoretically allow Ministers to block the transfer of ownership of Hinkley if EdF decided that it wanted to get out. (Worried about the Chinese taking total control, perhaps?!) Experts believe this may completely undo the case that the UK Government made to the Commission last year for approval of those huge subsidies.

And in the meantime, it has to be said that the world looks very different from the point of view of renewable energy. The costs of solar and wind continue to fall, year on year, with every indication that there’s a further 40% reduction to come over the next few years.

Hinkley has become toxic

So perhaps it’s not so surprising that the Coalition Government has been a lot quieter on its Hinkley hopes and dreams than it was last year. Not a peep, for instance, from the disgracefully compromised Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Davey. And not a peep from George Osborne, who must be looking at the finances of Hinkley Point with increasing hostility.

Interestingly, nor have we heard anything like as much from today’s pro-nuclear greenies as we did before – including George Monbiot, Stephen Tindale, Mark Lynas and even Jim Lovelock.

From what I’ve heard (by way of reliable gossip, it has to be said, rather than hard-and-fast evidence!), they’ve all realised that their ability to enthuse people with their pro-nuclear illusions is being severely (if not entirely) undermined by the Hinkley Point fiasco.

The combination of EdF and Areva (both realistically bankrupt, were it not for funding from the French Government), Chinese investors (demanding copper-bottomed guarantees that they will be bailed out when Hinkley Point turns into another Olkiluoto or Flamanville), a reactor design (the EPR) that even the keenest of nuclear engineers have started to describe as “unbuildable”, and the threat of further, even more costly delays (there’s now no chance at all that any reactor at Hinkley Point will be generating any electricity before 2025), is quite simply toxic.

My best bet is that these pro-nuclear greenies now desperately need Hinkley Point to fail, so that their reputations will be sort-of salvaged – even as they start hyping the next instalment of their nuclear nonsense.

We got a very strong sense of that through the speech of another pro-nuclear, former greenie, Baroness Worthington, Shadow Spokesperson for Energy and Climate Change in the House of Lords. In her words, the Hinkley Point deal has caused “a crisis of confidence” in the future of energy policy in the UK:

“policies which Conservatives brought in have resulted in a massive destabilisation of the energy market. Intervention in the market has dented confidence for a contract which has yet to be signed. We have become over-obsessed with the delivery of one project.”

And this from one of the keenest advocates of nuclear power in the Labour Party! No doubt her voice has been influential in the current Labour Party position on Hinkley, which is to argue that it needs a completely new financial appraisal, effectively giving the Labour Party a ‘get-out-of-Hinkley Point’ post-Election option.

When in a hole, stop digging. Tom Greatrex, take note!

Which is by no means the same thing, sadly, as Labour developing a ‘get-out-of-nuclear-altogether’ option. The Labour Party’s deeply unimpressive Energy Spokesman, Tom Greatrex, recently told voters in Scotland that a future Labour Government would force Scotland to be part of a new UK-wide nuclear programme – regardless of the SNP’s very clear anti-nuclear stance. (Go for it, Tom: what better way of winning back Labour voters in Scotland!)

All this chaos and confusion must surely mean that, post Election, we might at last be able to get back to a serious debate about energy policy here in the UK, without Hinkley Point distorting every single aspect of today’s Electricity Market Reform, shadowing out every single policy alternative, and holding back the mindset and behavioural revolutions amongst both business and the general public on which our energy future really depends.

We’ve already paid a very significant price for Labour’s sad surrender to the seductive lies of the nuclear industry, and for this Coalition Government’s near-incomprehensible decision to pursue the EPR reactor design for Hinkley Point. Between them, they’ve dug a hole already so deep that they have no idea what to do other than to keep on digging.

So let’s just hope that those Austrians stick to their guns with their legal challenge, for this is by far the longest and by far the most robust rope-ladder up which those benighted politicians – and ever-more benighted pro-nuclear greenies – will soon – ever so thankfully – be able to climb.

 

 

Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forum for the Future www.forumforthefuture.org. His latest book, ‘The World We Made‘ is available from www.phaidon.com/store.

This article was originally published on Jonathon Porritt’s blog.

 

 




391149

Community renewable energy in the UK needs co-ops! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been giving the UK’s small but fast-growing community energy sector a serious headache.

For years a cooperative ownership structure had proved highly popular for small scale, community based renewable energy projects, and a valuable alternative to standard companies limited by shares.

But last summer the Financial Conduct Authority suddenly – and without warning or prior consultation – ceased to register new energy coops.

The surprise move appeared to be no change of government policy, but rather the financial regulator itself applying existing rules more strictly than it had before.

Not surprisingly the move created significant political controversy, and before long Labour’s energy minister Tom Greatrex stepped into the fray with a letter to the FCA complaining that “future energy co-ops are being put at risk” by the change of approach.

“This sudden change threatens a model that combines the twin goods of decarbonisation and community involvement in energy”, he continued. “The FCA must urgently reconsider their approach – and Ed Davey needs to wake up and get a grip to prevent lasting damage to the prospects of more community energy projects in the UK.”

Consultation launched

The upshot was that the FCA launched a consultation on the topic – and tomorrow, 28th November, is the deadline for putting in comments. So please try to get your comments in!

Energy4All – a ‘co-operative of co-operatives’ in the renewable energy sector (and my employer) – also launched a 38 degrees petition aimed at the FCA: “Allow the creation of Renewable Energy Co-op’s with the Financial Conduct Authority.”

At the heart of the issue is the question of whether energy co-operative members participate enough in the co-op. To register a co-op, FCA rules require it to “show participation” by “buying from or selling to the society”, “using the services or amenities provided by it” and “supplying services to carry out its business”.

But unlike a co-op shop, which can sell direct to its members, energy co-ops are too small to apply for the public energy supply licenses that would allow them to sell electricity from their solar panels or wind turbines direct to members. Instead, they tend to sell their power into the local power network. Profits are divided among co-op members based on the size of their investment.

And there is no requirement in the ‘seven principles‘ of the International Co-operative Alliance that co-ops have to trade with their members. We believe the FCA should register any co-op that complies with the international principles without imposing additional constraints.

Co-ops have the potential to become a significant alternative to the big energy companies, but the growth of the sector – which is Government policy and backed by all parties – is at risk unless the FCA backs down.

What’s so good about co-ops?

Co-ops are open democratic structures (one member, one vote) with a social rather than a commercial ethos and would appear to be the natural way for like minded people to come together to make a renewable energy project work. The ‘seven principles’ are, in full:

  1. Voluntary and Open Membership – there is usually a public share offer to raise funds to build the project;
  2. Democratic Member Control – each member will have one vote no matter how much they have contributed to the capital of the co-op;
  3. Member Economic Participation – the members contribute equitably to and democratically control the capital of their co-operative;
  4. Autonomy and Independence – renewable energy co-ops are self help organisations controlled by their members;
  5. Education, Training and Information – renewable energy co-ops provide education and training for their members, and inform the public about the benefits of co-operation and of renewable energy;
  6. Co-operation among Co-operatives – renewable energy co-ops help other co-ops;
  7. Concern for Community – renewable energy co-ops spend part of their profits on community projects, especially those related to energy efficiency and education.

It’s not hard to see how an organisation set up and operated on these principles is not the same as any old limited company or PLC, and makes an ideal vehicle for locally-based energy projects for the mutual benefit of members and the wider community.

FCA proposal not good enough

The FCA says that using a Society for the Benefit of the Community (a ‘BenCom’) is more appropriate for community energy. However the consultation looks at making the raising of capital by a BenCom very restrictive. The result is that larger projects, the ones that generate most power per pound of investment, will be more difficult to finance.

It does seem odd that an individual can take advantage of the Feed in Tariff by putting solar panels on their roof, whereas other less fortunate people – say those with less cash, living in flats, or just with wrongly positioned roofs – are not to be allowed to come together in a co-operative which can often achieve a better result in terms of renewable energy output and social benefits.

Most people think renewable energy co-ops are a force for good and should be encouraged. Elswhere in Europe the co-operative is the main form for community energy ownership, and in countries where community ownership is much more established than in the UK, such as Denmark, co-ops have been instrumental in driving the expansion of the sector.

Wider use of the co-operative model in the UK can make an important contribution to changes in energy production and consumption which will help democratise the ownership of energy, reduce energy prices, support communities and increase the production of renewable energy which is such a vital tool in the fight against climate change.

It seems a pity that the UK, where the co-op was invented in the 19th century, cannot see its way to permitting its wider usage.

Would the Rochdale Pioneers have used a co-op to generate energy if they could? Surely the answer is a resounding ‘YES!’ Co-operative enterprise has a long and proud history and we must, in the spirit of the early co-operative pioneers, oppose needless restrictions on the sector.

 

 

Petition: “Allow the creation of Renewable Energy Co-op’s with the Financial Conduct Authority.”

Consultation document: CP14/22 Guidance on the FCA’s registration function under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The consultation closes tomorrow,
Friday 28 November 2014.

If you want to see more renewable energy co-operatives running community projects in the UK please participate in this consultation and make sure your views are heard!

Energy4All was formed in 2002 to expand community ownership of renewable energy. We now have 15 projects in the Energy4All family with 10,000+ members, £37m capital raised – enabling many more communities to benefit from renewable energy. We are ourselves a co-operative, owned by the co-ops that we serve.

Tammy Calvert is office manager at Energy4All.

 




387510

Keystone XL – who needs it? We got a railroad! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




“Rail can get you just about anywhere. It’s like the Harry Potter stairway. You get on the stairs at one end and they move to wherever you need to go.

“That’s the beauty of the railway. You get on at one end here, with your bitumen or dilbit, and then you can end up in different places depending on what are the best markets.”

That quote is from Pete Sametz, president of Connacher Oil and Gas, speaking to the Daily Oil Bulletin about the appeal of moving tar sands oil by rail. And Sametz isn’t alone in his enthusiasm for rail transportation options for bitumen. 

At the Canadian Institute’s North American Pipeline Symposium in June, Randy Meyer of Canadian National railway, told the conference how this situation appeared to him.

“It’s kind of amusing when I read in the paper that there’s this angst and gnashing of teeth about Keystone and I’m going, ‘My goodness, we’re already there.’ We can go there and we are. We are shipping product there.”

Rail vs pipeline – a 16% price advantage

Aside from the magical Harry Potter flexibility of rail compared to pipelines, rail also offers the option of moving bitumen without having to dilute it, as is required for pipelines, which makes it cheaper as explained by Randy Meyer.

“We did a study where we took the American Association of Railway’s published rates, which averaged out all the traffic that moves and all its products. That average … is about 16 per cent less than pipeline costs.”

The reality is that tar sands bitumen transport is so well-suited for rail over pipelines that it is now cheaper to move tar sands bitumen by rail than it is by pipeline.

If you’re a tar sands industry executive, this is your light-bulb moment: Who needs the Keystone XL headache when you can bypass the controversy entirely using existing rail lines?

Heating bitumen for railcars costs less than diluting it for pipelines

This reality and the recent revelations that the impact of the tar sands oil will be much greater than initially predicted, present a grim picture for the environment, although apparently an amusing and exciting one for oil and rail executives. Companies like Grizzly Oil Sands outline their plans on their website.

“Grizzly is excited at the range of benefits to be generated from its oil-by-rail bitumen marketing strategy. The Company believes its approach can achieve economics superior to using the Keystone XL pipeline, if built.”

On their site Grizzly mentions purchasing new rail cars to move bitumen as well as completing a rail-to-barge facility on the Mississippi in Louisiana.

And despite predictions in the new proposed oil-by-rail regulations that the DOT-111 cars that will eventually not be allowed to carry the much more volatile Bakken crude oil would instead be repurposed to carry tar sands oil, this is unlikely. The most profitable way to move bitumen by rail is in thermally-jacketed cars that allow for the oil to be heated.

The current DOT-111 cars don’t have this capacity and retrofitting them would be too costly. Heating the bitumen versus diluting it is where the industry sees the cost advantages. 

Tar sands oil ‘exempt’ from new testing requirements

And while the new proposed regulations for moving volatile crude oil and ethanol mention that tar sands oil may be transported in DOT-111s in the future, the proposed changes do not apply to tar sands oil in any way.

When the DOT first announced new testing requirements for crude oil being shipped by rail in February of this year, there was immediate push back from the industry because of the impact it may have on moving tar sands by rail.

The government quickly clarified that tar sands oil would be exempt from the requirements, a move that at the time was described by the president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers as a “judicious response”.

The cost advantages and flexibility of moving heated bitumen by rail and are spurring significant new investment in the oil-by-rail industry.

As reported by Oil Change International in their report Runaway Train, the planned expansion is massive and would increase the currently oil-by-rail capacity of one million barrels of oil per day to five times that amount. While much of this is also for lighter crudes like Bakken, it also is being driven by the desire to move tar sands oil by rail.

Trains give access to export oil terminals

As previously noted on DeSmogBlog, the additional reason that rail is appealing to tar sands producers is that they ultimately want to sell their product overseas. And while there is an export ban on oil produced in the US, this does not apply to the tar sands oil from Canada.

And the trains currently give access to the East, West and Gulf coasts where the oil can be loaded onto ocean going vessels and sent to the highest bidder on the world market.

Global Partners is currently one of the top capacity oil-by-rail companies with a terminal on the East coast in Albany, NY, on the West coast in Oregon and with plans to build a new facility in Texas and another in New Windsor, NY. And despite their current business of moving Bakken crude, they are actively promoting tar sands by rail to the industry.

Global Partners CEO Eric Slifka recently made the sales pitch for tars sands by rail at an industry conference saying, “we can take pure heavy crude oil, put it in a heated rail car … and move it directly.”

Global’s recent expansion plans in Texas resulted in the following headline in the Houston Business Journal: “Keystone? Who needs it? Railroad plans fuel terminal for Port Arthur”.

If the current economics of moving tar sands oil by rail can be proven to be scalable, and it would appear they can, rail appears to be faster, cheaper and more flexible as an option to get Canadian tar sands oil onto the international market.

Which means the producers can get higher prices, which in turn makes the expanded extraction and consumption of the tar sands that much more likely.

 

 

Justin Mikulka is a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Albany, NY. Justin lends his Internet expertise to the group Gas Free Seneca which is working to prevent large LPG storage facilities in the Finger Lakes region of NY. He has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/JustinMikulka

This article was originally published on DeSmogBlog.

 

 




383090